Re: Do you ever wish bourbon did not contain ethanol?

Ray, your sentiments mirrored mine when I first started sipping Bourbon. But before discovering Bourbon I drank very little. I don't feel that way any longer.

The effect and the flavors are both parts of the experience of drinking whiskey. Minimize either and you miss an important part of what makes the product fun.

A wise man from this forum once told me "Always remember, it's a marathon, not a sprint." You can sprint through flavors but you can't sprint through the effect. It's the effect that requires moderation and gives added value to the flavors.

I do drink for the taste more than the effect but the effect pulls me back for more. I also hate being drunk but with so many bottles out there like we had in Tallahassee you want to try them all but the effects can be overwhelming. No I didn't try them all but did get more buzzed than had intended.

The mild effect from ethanol is nice and desirable. Getting drunk is not

Really Allan, up until that incident with the Ostrich feathers and the riding crop you hardly seemed drunk at all.

Re: Do you ever wish bourbon did not contain ethanol?

Re: Do you ever wish bourbon did not contain ethanol?

Originally Posted by cowdery

In the beginning, there was Prodigy. And on Prodigy there was a wine, beer and spirits discussion group. It was usually the wine guys who would start the, "I don't drink for effect, I drink for the taste" discussion. I haven't heard it in a long time. Then as now, my instinct is to mock. The truth is, there is no separating taste from 'effect.' The effect is part of the taste. You experience it from the first sip. The psychoactive effect of the ethenol is essential to the experience. Artifically separating 'taste' and 'effect' in your mind is dangerous, as is any self-delusion. If you have a problem with alcohol but convince yourself you can flirt with enjoying the 'taste' only, you're playing Russian Roulette. If, on the other hand, you just want a moderate experience, then embrace that. Moderation is healthy. Longing for one more 'taste' is where the trouble starts.

Yeah, this.

The whole 'taste OR alcohol' dichotomy is a false one. Besides the extra pleasurable effect of alcohol on the brain, alcohol actually intensifies flavors (especially sweet ones). And, obviously, alcohol itself has a certain taste factor that contributes to the whole taste experience. The 'effect', then, is both pleasurable in itself and bound up with the taste. Maybe we wish we could drink more without getting too drunk, but it is naive to think that we would actually enjoy whiskey without alcohol just because we want to avoid getting too drunk. At best, it would be a radically different experience - not the same taste experience without the ethanol. (think non-alcoholic beer, like KyDram mentioned)

Re: Do you ever wish bourbon did not contain ethanol?

Re: Do you ever wish bourbon did not contain ethanol?

Originally Posted by scubadoo97

...The mild effect from ethanol is nice and desirable.

And that thought is at the center of my question Alan. I don't agree that the effect of the ethanol is nice, or desirable. I would prefer it be absent. I treat the effect as the price of admission - it's unfortunately required to have the experience of that specific taste.

Originally Posted by cowdery

...It was usually the wine guys who would start the, "I don't drink for effect, I drink for the taste" discussion. I haven't heard it in a long time. Then as now, my instinct is to mock. The truth is, there is no separating taste from 'effect.' The effect is part of the taste. You experience it from the first sip. The psychoactive effect of the ethenol is essential to the experience. Artifically separating 'taste' and 'effect' in your mind is dangerous, as is any self-delusion. If you have a problem with alcohol but convince yourself you can flirt with enjoying the 'taste' only, you're playing Russian Roulette. If, on the other hand, you just want a moderate experience, then embrace that. Moderation is healthy. Longing for one more 'taste' is where the trouble starts.

Mock all you want Chuck, but I think you missed my point (though I appreciate your concern about me being a dangerously self-deluded alcoholic playing Russian roulette - hope everything is okay at your end). Your generalization that "the psychoactive effect of the ethenol [sic] is essential to the experience" is not true for everyone. It is precisely the opposite of essential to me. That's kinda why I started the thread. If that wasn't clear from the OP, perhaps that's because the ethanol had an effect. See my point?

Last edited by SFS; 03-26-2013 at 07:15.
Reason: add an elipsis at beginning of second quote

Re: Do you ever wish bourbon did not contain ethanol?

If someone were to not want ethanol in their whiskey, they should simply swirl it around in their mouth and spit it out. If someone doesn't want ethanol in their whiskey and they end up swallowing it anyway, then I'm going to have to agree with Chuck's statement.

Do you ever wish bourbon did not contain ethanol?

Originally Posted by SFS

And that thought is at the center of my question Alan. I don't agree that the effect of the ethanol is nice, or desirable. I would prefer it be absent. I treat the effect as the price of admission - it's unfortunately required to have the experience of that specific taste.

Take a sip, enjoy the flavors, when you're done spit it out?

Your position is a little confounding to me. How did you come to be a whiskey drinker when you dislike the effects of alcohol? If that were me I'd have never made it past an occasional beer.

If there were a non-alcoholic bourbon, I wouldn't drink it. The flavors and the effects are both essential to the experience of whiskey drinking. Besides that, I will happily admit that there are times when the effect is the prime motivator. Sometimes a nice drink of a simple whiskey that doesn't take much thought is just what the doctor ordered.

Now, while we're fantasizing about a liquid with all the properties of alcohol save for the intoxication, what I would rather have arrive from fantasyland is a pill or some other drink that would undo the intoxicating effects

Re: Do you ever wish bourbon did not contain ethanol?

Its just a matter of preference. I once erroneously stated that to be a real bourbon drinker one must enjoy barrel proof bourbons. I was laid open by many that insist the high is a nessasary party of the experience (i do not nessasarily disagree). What I intended to convey is that to enjoy barrel proof you must be a true bourbon drinker. Likewise it would seem that the author simply wished to convey he would prefer to be able to drink more bourbon but due to the A content, he can not. I don't think he was advocating a non-A bourbon, only lamenting on his self control to avoid getting drunk with the mild regret of refusing "another".

isnt that what lower proof whiskey is for, the ability to have "more"?

its not like he was trying to sell a pre-prohibition bottle of rye (with questionable providence) for $50,000 or something.

"You can't claim to have been drinkin all day if you don't start first thing in the mornin."